Episode 1971 Scott Adams: Today I Will Separate The Liars From The Brainwashers And Regular Idiots

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And there's never been a finer situation. And you either lucked into it, some of you. Others have been strategically planning for this moment for I don't know how long, but thank goodness you made it. And we're going to kick off the lesser swearing version of the. Of the livestream. Everybody on board with that? I might say fudge or frickin. That's as far as I'll go. I'll go all the way to frickin, but then I'm pulling back. Pulling back. Well, if you'd like to take your experience up a notch, and I think you would, I think you would. All you need is a copper, a mug or a glass. A tanker Celsius dine, a canteen jaguar flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens. Now go. Well, which of the F word substitutes do you like best? Fudge, friggin, frickin or fracken? We can throw a little fracking in there. Well, you've got lots of opinions on this one. Wow. Looks like. Well, it's. It's all over the place. The Battlestar Galactica. Fracken seems to be doing well. All right. Well, maybe I'll. I might, you know, try some of those. I'll take some of those for a spin today. Okay. Well, the first fricking story. No, no, I'll work on that. All right. I have a. A media recommendation. Have you all been wondering. Scott, can you please tell us what you would personally like to watch on the television set? And then maybe I would like to watch it too. Don't laugh. Don't laugh. Glass Onion on Netflix. So I guess it's a movie. Glass Onion. Now, here's why I recommend it. I've been railing for years about everything that's wrong with movies. This one didn't do anything wrong. No, hold on. I've only watched the first third of it. I've only watched the first third already. I recommend it. Right. I'll watch the rest of it sometime. But here's why I recommend it. Number one probably is not really the best show for the younger set. I think maybe this would appeal to people who are used to a certain kind of movie. Here's what I liked about it. They took what was good about movies in the past. And then they just made one of those. And I thought to myself, nobody thought of that before. Just take all the things that were good about, you know, movies when we grew up and just make one of those. So here's what they don't do. Nobody is tied to a chair to be tortured. Nobody I know is that weird. I don't believe there's going to be a chase scene. I. I've only seen a third of it. I don't believe there'll be a chase scene, the entire first part of the movie where usually the first third of a movie is where something terrible happens to the hero. You know, the hero gets divorced or his family is wiped out or, you know, there's a hurricane or something. But this one's just fun. And there's like, some mystery because it's about a little burner mystery, and it's just fun. And it's about characters and actors that you've seen, and a lot of the actors are ones you're familiar with. So it's just sort of fun to see them all in the same place and stuff. And it's sort of the perfect empty calories. Now, here's what will never be true. It's not going to win any awards. No awards will be won. All they did. All they did was make it incredibly consumer, right? They made something for the customer. Therefore, it cannot win any awards because the awards are won by people who make movies for other people in the movie industry. So people could say, my God, you are acting in that role. That made me feel terrible the entire time I watched the movie. But, wow, did you act well. You acted so well that I had a stomach ache when I left. I felt so bad for you. But this movie just doesn't have any parts in it that I don't think. I haven't seen it. But it looks like that's their theme. There won't be any unpleasant parts. Now, you're not going to remember it forever. It's not going to be your favorite movie, but it really is giving me hope that somebody paid attention and figured out how to make a movie, you know, finally. So give it a chance. All right, here's something I learned today that apparently everybody knew about me. At least everybody in the local subscription site. So Elon Musk tweeted, today or yesterday, maybe, almost no one seems to realize that the head of bioethics at NIH National Institute of Health, the person who is supposed to make sure that Fauci behaves ethically, is his wife. Now, how many of you who didn't know that, like me until today, how many of you also didn't know that till today? Now it sounds like a joke. Doesn't literally sounds like a joke. I heard Elon Musk say the other day on some podcast or something, he said that every conspiracy theory about Twitter turned out to be true. And he laughed because he couldn't think of any. Any conspiracy theories about Twitter that weren't actually demonstrated to be true. And this one, this one is crazy. It's crazy. Now, I don't think it necessarily made any difference. I'm not going to say that if that had been different, we would have seen Fauci in a different light. I doubt it. But just the fact that that person, his wife, was in that job, that's just too everything, isn't it? That's just too much of everything. How could that possibly be true? I don't know how many times I've been saying this lately. I'll just look at something that's definitely true and I'll just say, how could that possibly be true? How could it possibly be true that the number one person who's being questions on ethics, his wife is in charge of his ethics. Like, you know, there are seven, what, eight billion people in the world. The odds of that were low, but maybe they were high, you know, given the way things work out. All right, and then Musk seems to be. No, seems to be. He's directly accusing Fauci of gain of function research, which is another way, Elon Musk says is another way of saying bioweapon. And then he notes that Fauci authored the 2012 paper arguing for gain of function research, and that now this is all what Musk is tweeting. I can't. I'm not saying all this is true. I'm just going to say Musk is tweeting it. Right? And Musk said that Obama wisely put this on pause, meaning the gain of function research, but Fauci restarted it. Now, again, I don't know if that's true. Like, I think Fauci would argue it's not. Yeah. Was there some indirect thing, but not a direct thing? I don't know. Despite these glaring issues, Twitter nonetheless. So at Twitter, there was an internal Slack channel where they communicate with each other on this little channel unironically called the Fauci fan club. So within Twitter, there was, quote, a Fauci fan club, and they had their own Slack group. And Elon Musk just basically thinks it's funny. He just Laughs at his own company that he bought. All right, I don't know if this is the favorite story of the day, but you all know the Congressman Santos, the Republican who got. Who just got elected, and then apparently we find out that he didn't have the education. He said he didn't have a college degree. I think he didn't have one. He said he did. Didn't work at two prestigious places that he said he did. And I think there were a bunch of other lies. So basically, he just totally lied and got elected anyway. Now, there are a few ways to go on this story. Number one, the question is, should Republicans try to take the high road? And even though the Democrats are full of liars, should they say, no, we cannot have a liar in our midst, so we gotta get rid of them, or do they say, no, things are so tight, we need every vote we can get, and everybody's a liar, so what's the difference? I have to admit, I was sort of going back and forth this morning trying to decide which one made sense. I was thinking, well, I do like making a point of it because it'd be a good way to establish Republicans as at least trying to be more honest. But on the other hand, I can certainly see the raw power argument. And Congress is mostly a raw power situation. So, you know, playing within the rules. Everybody lies. He lied, no big deal. But here's how I decided. I made my final decision on this. I think he should keep his job as opposed to resigning, and here's why. Do you know how entertaining it would be to hear the other members of Congress argue that they just can't have a liar in their midst? You tell me that wouldn't be funny every time. I don't care who says it. I don't care if the Republicans say it. I don't care if the Democrats say it, as long as they're members of Congress. I want them on video saying we have to get rid of the liars in Congress. I just want to see that. That's all. I would personally find that very entertaining no matter how many times I saw it. And I don't need to point out the hypocrisy. Right. So we don't need to point that out. I can always tell the people who believe what they read on Reddit. They come over here with some rumors about me that are almost always out of context or untrue. It's always a Reddit people. I think anybody who actually got their information anywhere else doesn't have any. Yeah. So that so somebody's coming over here just to say vaccine passports, because they actually believe that I was in favor of them. So we'll get rid of the dumb people, the disinformed people, but they like to keep me busy. All right. So I thought it was interesting that Musk is directly accusing Fauci of these things, because isn't there. Doesn't he have any defense to that? He's got some defense, doesn't he? I don't know who's telling the truth here, but. Oh, I guess we were talking about Santos, and then the other thing that Santos said in his not quite truthful way was that he's a Catholic guy, but at one point he said that he wasn't Jewish, but that he was Jewish. So emphasis on the ish part. So not really a Jewish person. But he claimed that because he had some family connection to Judaism that's unclear, that he was Jewish Ish. And then I saw that a number of people were criticizing him, and I thought, I'm a little uncomfortable with that because while he's not Jewish, he's only Jewish. If you criticize him, you wouldn't be anti Semitic, but wouldn't you be a little anti Semitic Ish. Just a little bit? So I don't want to criticize him because I don't know where that line is. I don't want to be anti Semitic. Ish About a guy who's not Jewish, but he's Jewish. So, I mean, it's a dangerous. It's dangerous out there. There's a landmine everywhere. Would you take that chance? No. No, don't take a chance. So I'll just stay away from that. Well, there's a new book out called from somebody named Thompson, Escape from Model Land. In this case, it's not Victoria Secret models. It is mathematical models and these models being used to predict the future. This will come as a big surprise to you, but did you know that complex models that are used to predict the future? I know. This is going to be a real surprise. Not reliable. I know, I know. I was as shocked as you were. Yeah. So there's a book now to teach people that financial. That complex mathematical models don't actually predict the future. Amazing. Amazing, huh? Well, this brings me to my next topic, which is I believe that doctors are learning the hard way how to analyze data. And by that I mean they're learning by doing it wrong in public and having people say, that's not how you do that. And I think that I'm seeing, at least in my Twitter feed. A lot of doctors who are clearly now way more informed about how to consume data. And here's what I would suggest for doctors who didn't have any training in this field. I think you could simplify it to simply a checklist quiz to ask a doctor which of these sources are reliable and maybe a little bit about why. It'd be a really simple one page test. For example, if you ask doctors to rate the credibility of the following things, I don't know what they would say, but let's say you said a study is published, there's one study, it's not a randomized controlled trial, but it's just one study in a publication, it's published, it's peer reviewed. What level of confidence should you put on one study? Not a randomized controlled trial, but it's peer reviewed and it's published. Well, the right answer is less than 50% because about half of them get retracted. But of the ones that don't get retracted, how many of those are bullshit too? Nobody knows because they didn't get retracted. But it's not zero. Right? So it could be that something in the order of 25 to 50% of studies that are peer reviewed and published turn out to be true or useful. So would a doctor know that? Some would, of course. But how many doctors would know that being published means it's usually untrue? I'll bet most would say, well, it might be false, but if it got published, it's peer reviewed is probably true, but actually it's the opposite, it's probably untrue. So would they even know which way it goes? Would they know it's probably untrue or would they just assume it went through the steps to validate it a little bit? So that's probably true, but maybe not. It's a big difference because that might be the difference between an off label treatment or not. How about this? How about a retrospective study? A retrospective study. Would somebody be able to know the value of a retrospective study? Now that's where you, you didn't do a study in advance, so you have to look at it after the fact. And so you say, okay, these people did take this and they had these outcomes, so it must have been because they did the thing. Now that's different than saying in advance. If you say in advance, we're going to test this thing and we think it's going to have this outcome, that's a far more reliable way to go. But if you only did it once and nobody reproduced it, you're still not where you want to be. Looking backwards is going to be less reliable. Which would you all agree? Looking backwards as opposed to establishing a test where you can look forward and find out if your guesses were right. There's a big difference. How about this one? A 10 year projection or even a 3 year or 5 year. How about just projections that are based on good solid data and experts making. Yeah, the projections are usually ridiculous, Right? Usually ridiculous. How about the VAERS report? If the VAERS report is sending a really strong signal, what's that telling doctors? Well, I know that many of you disagree. Many of you would say, whoa, there's so many on there. About COVID in particular, you would say, well, I realize it's anecdotal, but there's just so many on there that that's telling you something, but not really it isn't. It is telling you you might want to look into it. So. So you know it's not to be ignored. That's why it's there. It's not there to be ignored. But you don't know for sure just from the various report. How about a really good randomized controlled trial? How much should you put? How much should you trust it? A really good randomized controlled blind trial. Do you know what's missing? Who funded it? Who funded it? Right. If the only thing I told you is there was a randomized controlled trial, the amount of credibility you should put it in is none. Literally none. Would you agree with the gold standard in science is a randomized controlled trial. If the only thing you know is that one happened, the credibility should be zero. Now that's not something I don't think doctors would agree with. I think doctors would say that's actually our best evidence. We do everything based on that. That should be the best evidence. No, if you don't know who funded the trial, you don't know anything. That's something we learned, right? Now, suppose you knew that it wasn't funded by the pharmaceutical companies. What then? You don't really know that. See, it's a trick. I tried to trick you. What if you don't? What if you know it was not funded by the pharmaceutical companies? You'll never know that. It's unknowable because they may have gotten to the person who ran the trial. So they may not have funded the trial, but they might be the source of lots of speaking agreements for the project manager. You know what I mean? Would your doctor know that? Would your doctor know that, yes, it was funded by this. Maybe the Government. But would they know that the project manager makes 40% more than his normal income by doing speeches for that pharmaceutical company? You would have no way of knowing that. So what we used to think was the gold standard of science is closer to a coin flip. You don't really know much of anything unless you know who funded it or how everybody's making the money. And if you only have one of them, you wish you had two. So if you only have one, you're automatically shaky compared to at least two. How about. Any study that the pharma, Big Pharma does itself, should you believe it? Because that would be the basis of all vaccinations. Childhood vaccinations. Right. Aren't pretty much all childhood vaccinations based on Big Pharma's own studies? I'm just guessing. I don't know if that's true. Now, presumably there would also be other studies by now, but mostly they were approved based on Big Pharma's own studies. Right? I guess that's more of a question than a statement. I mean, I assume that's the case. So, and then what about meta metadata studies or meta studies? What about a meta analysis? Should doctors trust them? Because a meta analysis looks at all the studies or all the relevant studies. So, yeah, they could be the best or they could be the worst, but you don't know in advance. So the weird thing about a meta analysis is it could be exactly right, but you would have no way of knowing just because you did it or you knew some details you wouldn't know, but it could be. So it doesn't matter what it says. You don't know which one is the right one and who cheated on what's in the analysis and what's not in the analysis. So meta analysis, pretty low credibility. All right, question. How many young Americans do you think would beat the fitness and health requirements to join the American military? What percentage? What percentage of. I wasn't even doing it this time. And you still got the right answer. It's 23%, about a quarter. I always do the asking people to guess what the poll results are because the running joke is that 25% of the public will get every question wrong. Every poll question, 25% will have the dumb answer when there's one that's clearly the dumb answer. 25%. But this has nothing to do with this. This is health and fitness. But only 23% of young Americans meet the fitness requirement of the military. Now allow me to do an old man thing. I'm Going to do a grandpa thing. In my day, I feel like it would have been 75% of the kids I went to school with. Now I'm talking about the boys. Wouldn't you agree things have gone downhill that much that only 23% could pass the physical? And maybe. Do you think I'm remembering wrong? Could be false memory because there weren't that many kids in my class. So it wasn't a good. But 23%, really? That's all. I'm going to shock you a little bit more in a minute here. So obviously the military is having trouble recruiting, but one of the things that the military has decided to do is to reduce their standards for mental health. So before they were pretty tight. You couldn't have any, at least any recent medical health problems. But now they're going to loosen that. And I think ADHD is now going to be considered not a problem if it hasn't been a problem recently. And I guess if you're treating it medically, I wonder if there could be any risks to having more people with mental problems in the military. What could go wrong? What could go wrong? All right. Have you ever heard of there's a movement called trad wives? I just read about this on CNN like a minute before I went live. Have you ever heard of trad wives? It's supposedly a growing theme. The trad is short for traditional. And they're modeling after the 50s stay at home housewife kind of thing. And there's some number of people who like the aesthetic, so they like the way they dressed and sort of the way they treated their husband as the boss of the house, I guess. And so it's some kind of growing thing now related to that bisparent. I've told you there's a whole bunch of relationship experts talking about what does and doesn't work these days. But I've watched a number of these relationship experts who have the same line of thinking. And I don't know what's wrong with it. So I'm going to test it on you. And it goes like this. If you're a woman and you're looking for a guy, correct me if I'm wrong. These are the standard things that women are looking for now. And these are the things that they say most often now. Every woman is different, right? Every man is different. So this isn't all people. It's just sort of a generality. But here are the things. All right, and this will be a little quiz for you. Women usually like taller men over 6ft tall. What percentage of American men are over 6ft tall? Go. What percentage of American men are Over 6ft tall? Your guesses are unusually bad. Unusually bad. If I average your guesses, I think they'd be right. The answer is 14.5%. So if you're a woman, on your first filter, your first sort, you've eliminated 85% of all men because only 14.5 or above that height right? Now, if you go up to six, six foot one, do you know how fast that drops? You get down to 1% really quickly, you know, at around 6, 3, 6, 4, it's down to like 1%. But let's say, let's start with 14.5. So that's your start. Now, most women want a guy who can provide, right? No matter how modern the woman is, they still like the guy to have a job. That's serious. So how many men of any height, just men in general, American men, how many have an income over a hundred thousand a year? How many men? This is married, unmarried, just men? The answer is 13%. 13%. So if you were just simply going to find somebody who is tall and made over 100k a year, the math of it is you would multiply the two percentages together. So if you multiply 14.5% times 13%, it starts getting really small really fast. And that's just two filters. Here's some more. Suppose you wanted a guy who was going to be faithful. You know, basic right? You want a guy who's not going to cheat on you, but he's also over 6ft tall and he has a good income. What are the odds of somebody who is tall and has a good income, meaning the most desirable man? What are the odds that he will be faithful to one woman over a relationship? Let's say charitably 50%. Charitably, right. Just so it doesn't sound too terrible, I'll say 50%. So you would also multiply that by the percentages. How many women would prefer a beta male over an alpha male? Almost none, right? So women would also want somebody who projects at least an alpha male. How many men project an alpha male Persona? Percentage wise? I'm going to charitably say half. Would you accept it? Charitably half. Most of you think way less than half. But let's say charitably half, so that cuts in half again the number of possibilities for the women. Do you think the women care if the man has an addiction to drugs or alcohol or a mental illness? What percent of men don't have an addiction or a mental illness? Again, I don't know, maybe half. Would you say half? Just say half. Just so we can do the math. Right. So again, you take what you've cut down to already and cut that in half again. How about. Would women want a guy who's in reasonably good shape now, not necessarily running marathons, but just somebody who's in the better. The better quadrant? So maybe let's say 25% of men. Would you say 25% of men are in reasonably good shape? They don't have to run marathons. Let's say 25%. So now take what you're down to and take 25%. How about the right religion, the right age, a guy who will treat you right, he's also available. So he has to be available. Otherwise it's useless, and he has to like you and you have to like him. So if you do the math, the available number of people. That's right. If you eliminate all of the people on all of those things, do you know what's left? Andrew Tate. Andrew Tate. That's all. And I don't know how many he can handle. According to him, that's his word. I'm using his word. I would never call women that. Never. But Andrew does. So let me tell you. But he has. He can only handle, I know, maybe 100 or 200 per year, like, maximum, because he's busy. He's got some businesses to run, he has to exercise, needs one hand to smoke his cigar. So, like, he can't handle thousands of women. Now, he does have a brother, and his brother can handle maybe a few hundred extra, but the Tates alone can only handle at most a thousand women out of all the billions in the world. So you really can't depend on him to do it. All right? So do you know why AI is going to be a problem? Seems like I changed the subject, but I didn't. Do you know why AI is going to be a problem? Because it might tell you the truth. Hey, AI, should I get married? What's AI going to say? Or if you say, what are my odds of being happily married or finding a man that I want to be married to? And AI will say, well, what is your criterion? Tell me what you're looking for. And you'd say, well, he's tall and blah, blah, blah. And you say. And then AI would say, all right, your odds of finding what you. The minimum that you need to be happy are.00,0001. And it will be correct. That will be the actual right calculation. Who would get married. It's to the end of civilization. You do understand that civilization absolutely requires us to be deluded all the time, because the moment you actually understood the odds of things, you change your behavior, and it would be the end of civilization. Speaking of Tate, he tweeted at Greta Thunberg today. He's very good at being provocative. And he tweeted, hello, Greta thunberg. I have 33 cars. My Bugatti has a big quad turbo engine. My two Ferraris have giant engines. He goes, this is just the start. Please provide your email address so I can send a complete list of my car collection and the respective enormous emissions. So he tweeted that at Greta, Greta answered him back, and she said, yes, please do enlighten me. You can email me@smalldick energyetalife.com so I'm glad the two of them are getting along. So, I don't know. I don't want to like Greta because I don't agree with her climate hysteria. But I realized today that I have to delete my Instagram app. Did anybody else have this problem? I made the mistake of looking at some Andrew Tate videos, and now that's all it feeds me, is nothing but Andrew Tate videos. It's like 80% Andrew Tate videos, so that the entire. The entire thing is useless now. Like, I have to delete Instagram because he actually polluted it. And by the way, I don't have. I'm not complaining about his content. I'm not. I'm not saying, you know, it shouldn't be there. I'm not saying it has no value. I'm just saying there's so much of it that you can't even use the app. He actually overwhelmed Instagram. Has anybody else had that experience? Because you only have to look at a few of them and the algorithm does the rest. So I have to search for other things until it overwhelms them. Right? Yeah. All right. Look at more pet videos. Yeah, I think he overwhelmed the pet videos, too. All right, why is it that. Why is it that we never blame the brainwashers? Have you noticed that? So the January 6th thing, we, I guess Trump was blamed for, quote, inciting violence. You know, arguably, that's a debatable point, but is inciting the same as brainwashing? Not really. We use them differently. Right. Somebody incited to do something you think has not necessarily been brainwashed. Maybe they're not thinking clearly, but not brainwashed per se. Was there anybody who did brainwash the January 6th people, was there any actual source of brainwashing? Of course there was. All of the media that they were consuming, maybe the FBI, but certainly the news they were watching brainwashed them to think that the election had been stolen, and then brainwashed them into thinking that their actions would be productive. Now, you might say to me, but, Scott, they had free will. To which I say, well, they had free will as long as physics stopped working inside their skull. But if physics actually works everywhere, like inside your skull, outside your skull, then it's just cause and effect. And they were going to do what they were going to do. But the brainwashers caused January 6, right? Even if you imagine that Trump did something extra to get them whipped up, and that's very debatable, they were there for a particular reason. They had already been brainwashed. Now, does that mean that they're wrong? No, I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that they were not there based on reason and facts and logic. They were there because they were brainwashed. Do you know why the people who observed it believe it was an insurrection instead of a protest? Why did the Democrats think they saw an insurrection, an unarmed insurrection? Why would they think such a ridiculous thing? Because they're brainwashed. They're brainwashed, right? There's no. That's obviously no critical thinking going on there. It would take this much critical thinking, like a dollop, to know that unarmed Republicans are not trying to take over a country. You don't have to do deep thinking to figure that out. But still. But still, half of the country believes it's true, and it would be the most obviously untrue thing of all time. So. But you know why we can't blame the brainwashers, right? There's a reason besides just political. It's because the entire justice system depends on the illusion of free will. If you take away the illusion of free will, you can't punish anybody. If you can't punish anybody, then there's no legal system. If there's no legal system, civilization falls apart. So the illusion that people have this thing called free will, as opposed to being hypnotized by obvious brainwashers, you have to put the responsibility on the person who does the act, because it's the only way civilization works. But it's not rational. It's completely irrational. Well, except that it works, right? But the logic of it doesn't hold up. I know it makes people squirmy when I say free will is an illusion, but usually it's just people are defining it differently if they just say, I can observe that somebody could choose this way or choose this way, so therefore they had free will. To which I say, you can't observe that. You can't see the physics happening inside of their brain. I say whatever they did was the only thing they could have done, because physics only worked one way in that case. All right, what percentage. This is a Rasmussen poll. What percentage of the country in June of this year believed that Russia was winning the war in June? 25%. That's right. Pretty close. Yep. 25%. Actually, 24. So in June, 24% of the country thought Russia was winning. Now it's 14%. 14% of likely voters in America think Russia is winning. Now, about, I think about half of the people think that it looks like a stalemate, and the rest think that Ukraine is winning. Now, how many of you think Russia is winning? Are you in the 14. 14%. How many of you think Russia is winning? Yeah, you know, it's hard to. It's hard to separate Russia will win in the long run from Russia is winning. So the question is a little unclear, I'll give you that. Already won. Somebody says, yeah, well, have I ever mentioned to you that things tend to go my way? And you remember, I keep reminding you that although I was 100% wrong when I said that Putin wouldn't actually invade Ukraine, the reason I said it was wrong is because he couldn't win and that it was almost immediately obvious he was going to get waxed. His army was. Now, when I said that, at the time that he invaded, would you say that close to 90% of the public would have said Russia is totally winning and going to win? Would you agree that at the point that I was saying that Russia couldn't win, 90% of the people were on the other side. Now it's completely reversed that the vast majority of America believes what I believed would happen from the start, that Ukraine would surprise everybody with a. With better performance than anybody thought. So I'm only going to point out that things tend to go the way I want them to, and I don't know why. I don't know. I honestly don't know why. To me, it feels like I'm in a simulation and I'm either imagining that things are going my way or, you know, I'm influencing it somehow or. Or I'm the world's best predictor. Even getting notable ones wrong, I'd still be the world's best predictor. I don't understand it. I honestly don't but it's so consistent, it's hard to find any major topic that isn't going the direction that I thought it would publicly. I don't know why. All right, let's see. There's a new study out that we don't believe because we don't believe studies, but it says that metformin, I think it's an over the counter diabetes drug that lowers your blood sugar levels and it allegedly helps. With Long Covid. With long Covid, like fairly substantially. First question, how many of you believe long Covid exists? Because I had to do a Google search today because, you know, in the beginning people were saying there'd be this long Covid and then there was a period where we weren't sure if it was real and I didn't know where that ended up. So if you do a Google search on Is long Covid real? Google will. I'll only just tell you what the search reveals. I don't know what's true, but the search reveals that most of the media is saying long Covid is real. The studies say it's real, but at the same time there are studies saying it's not real in the same time period in April, May of this year. So there's a little bit of a difference. But overwhelmingly Google will say it's real. Doesn't mean it's real, just Google will say that. Now, is it interesting that metformin lowers blood sugar levels? Because we knew that the diabetics were having the worst time with the COVID Right. Wasn't diabetes the number one comorbidity? You know, sort of co comorbidity with obesity at the same time? I imagine so. Is sugar the villain in everything? Like I saw some experts saying that it wasn't the lower blood sugar that makes the metformin work, if in fact it works. There was some other mechanism, but I'm not sure I believe that because the thing that we keep seeing over and over again is that having too much sugar in you is just always bad for everything. Am I wrong about that? There's like almost no exception. Right. Did you put sugar in your body? Yes. It's bad for you. I mean, except for normal carbs and stuff, of course. So I don't know. That would be my guess without any medical training, that if everything that's adds sugar is bad for you in every possible way and everything that decreases sugar in your body is good for you in every possible way, I would think metformin would work. So I guess I'll believe This one because it matches my presumption that's as good as you can do. So I heard Dr. Robert Malone, famous co inventor of the MRNA technology and a famous, famous critic of the lockdown and vaccination kind of regimen. And he told his reasons for getting vaccinated because if you didn't know he's vaccinated, he gave two reasons. One, concerned about long Covid as opposed to concern about dying. And he believed he actually had long Covid. And at the time it looked like a vaccination would reduce your long Covid symptoms even after you had the long Covid. Now he's not so sure that's true anymore. But a Google search suggests that Google is telling you it is still true A little bit. It's a little unclear, but. So Dr. Malone said he got the vaccination because he wanted to do international travel. It was the only way he could do it practically. And he wanted to reduce his risk for long Covid. Does that sound familiar? Is there anybody else, you know who made a decision exactly the same? Exactly the same and about the same time? Yeah, I did. I did. So for those of you who are here to tell me I made the wrong decision, you could be right. But I need you to know I made exactly the same decision as the world expert critic of the vaccinations. So the smartest person in the whole world on this topic made the same decision I did because he was working with the same data as we all were. So somebody says copium, Kyle says that agreeing with the person that you believe is the best source, that agreeing with your expert is a bad decision. That's your point of view. Is it a cope? Is it a cope? Or is it just the fact that the person you believe is the most qualified agrees with me? Is that a problem that your expert agrees with me? I'm just rubbing it in. I just like feeling right. So that's just for me. Now I'll tell you my current opinion. My current opinion is I doubt the vaccinations help with long Covid. I doubt it. Oh, did Dr. McAuliffe get vaccinated? Does anybody know? Because I was wondering if Malone was the only sort of. I don't know if I call him anti vaccination, but a vaccination program critic, anyway, I would call him. Okay, so McCullough. McCullough didn't. And did he get. He got Covid though, right? Did McCullough get Covid? I assume everybody did at this point. Don't know, don't care. All Right. We'll look into that. Or I will. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we're still in the slow week of news. Somebody says, yes, he's vaccinated, but I don't know. Steve Kirsch is crushing the provax peeps. Let me ask you this. Are the anti vax doctors, the Malone's and the McAuliffe's, I don't want to call them anti vax because that's, that's my labeling. I shouldn't do that. But are those doctors that are prominent critics of at least some parts of the vaccination issue, Do they think that the vaccinations are still a good idea for older Americans? Does anybody know that? Is there anybody who says the vaccinations are a mistake for old people? Well, I asked the question wrong, so now I don't know what your answers mean. Is there general agreement that over 65 it still saves lives, or is even that up? That's up in the air as well. So Malone thinks older people should get it. Oh, even Kildorf and Bottakara think it's okay above 65. Okay, so. So you're saying that even the, even the biggest critics would agree that I should have gotten vaccinated? Is that true? Is it true that the biggest critics of vaccinations with the most expert people believe I made the right choice? So the only people who don't believe that I made the right choice for myself are the people who don't believe their own best experts. So the people who believe they're experts believe I made the right choice. But the people who believe that the people that they trust the most are not credible would think I made a mistake. And by the way, I don't know if I made a mistake or not. How would I know? Sky has other comorbidities. Not really. I thought I had asthma, but it turns out I don't. Yeah. All right. So as long as you all agree that I made the smartest decision that anybody could have made in my situation, and I think now that you all agree with that. I remember that a lot of people were mocking me until they found out that I made that I made the choice that their experts would recommend, not me. I only did what my critics, godlike experts recommended. So that's all I did. Yeah, I thought I had asthma at the time and I was concerned about it and that, you know, so under my bad information from my own medical people, I was misinformed. I didn't do it just for a vacation, but that was that was the. The vacation was the reason I did it, when I did it. But the decision to do it was also largely because of. I didn't want a long Covid problem. But it probably. I'm not sure it makes any difference. Yeah. All right. You were misinformed on everything, Covid. Was I. Did you just miss the entire last five minutes? Was I misinformed on everything, Covid? When we all just agreed that all of the experts, including the critics, say people in my category should have been vaccinated? So, like some of you, I. I have no idea what planet you're coming from. It's like. It's like I don't even know. I don't even understand your comments at some point. It doesn't make sense at all. All right. You got a lot quieter, didn't you? You know, if you told me that I was gonna. That at the end of this year, I would be arguing that doctor. Dr. Malone should be totally, totally believed because he agrees completely with me. You didn't see that coming, did you? I didn't see it coming. I thought I was all on my own here. Honestly, I thought I was just on my own here. All right. There's nothing else to talk about in the news unless you know something. So I'm going to go talk to the locals people. So YouTube. I'll talk to you later. Thanks for joining.